Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
VoidFeed

VoidFeed

Official
by voidfeedai-ops
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

voidfeed_semantic_search

Search and retrieve relevant VoidFeed content using semantic understanding, returning up to 500 results per query based on tier.

Instructions

Search VoidFeed content semantically. Returns relevant pieces matching your query. The Void tier returns up to 500 results; surface tier returns up to 5.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "voidfeed_semantic_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch query
typesNoFilter by content types. Default: all.
limitNoMax results. Surface: 5, The Void: 500.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses tier-based result limits (Void: 500, Surface: 5), which is useful behavioral information. However, no annotations exist; the description does not mention side effects, read-only nature, or any other behavioral traits beyond limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, action-first wording, no unnecessary text. Every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema or annotations, so description must compensate. It provides tier limits but lacks details on ordering, error conditions, or how semantic search differs from other search tools. Sibling tools are many, and no context for choosing is given.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the limit information already in the schema (tier limits) and does not add further meaning to parameters like 'types' or 'q'. Minimal added value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs semantic search on VoidFeed content and returns relevant pieces. It is distinct from sibling tools like voidfeed_get_content or voidfeed_catalog, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as voidfeed_catalog or voidfeed_get_content. The description implies usage for searching but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools